Note for those who may not know G-E: he loves conspiracy thrillers, specially spreading these conspiracy theories, being an easy source of very potential fake news.

G-E wrote:

Hah get ready for more insanity!

Cool down, sir. The current reality of copyright laws in Europe is currently explained HERE (check the external links there specifically for a more reliable source).

Anyway, even if whatever is said in that video gets "enforced", believe me... it won't be properly followed, exactly like what is happening nowadays with GDPR. I don't expect sites to encrypt everything EU legislators consider to be personal data (mostly because it is actually a very stupid thing to do that may compromise security and performance of the site), I don't expect bloggers and sites from natural persons to have lawyer representatives in the European Union nor following nearly close of the half of the articles of this regulation. And the vast majority (+99% of them) won't be sued because of that. However, this kind of regulation can be used by governs and big companies to put their competition off the record.

In short, if legislators create non-viable laws, they won't be followed nor respected properly.

Haha why is your natural tendency to accuse me of something? The EU is passing laws I have no say in, and considering how much the GPDR is stressing you out, what makes you think their next wave is going to be any less sweeping or complicated?

Sure, but if you remove the exemption for fair use with the goal of monetizing every bit of copyrighted content under the guise of "protection" you literally can't come up with anything less hyperbolic that destroying the internet.

I was briefly involved in local politics, at least the invisible side of it, and I can tell you every fear listed about vague and sweeping terms that are largely undefined is very very common in legislation. It allows a politician to enact a law that sounds good in practice, without having to fully understand the ramifications or legal extent, and offloading that responsibility to the courts. The courts then have to spend decades reigning in the law or occasionally setting a really terribly broad precedent that everyone disagrees with -- see: Citizens United.

In my area, there's a low speed highway that arcs over the city, it's not meant to be a main artery, but is mostly industrial and fills up during rush hours nonetheless. This street however clears up afterhours for the most part, especially as it goes west towards a more sparsely populated residential section, along with a fair few gas stations, and this means a lot of kids street race.

My province passed a law similar to California where they will fine you $10000 and potentially seize/crush your car if you are caught doing 50 over the speed limit, as well as summary license suspension. They all claimed this was to stop the street racing, but on 1 street in 1 city? Nonsense. Speeding is already illegal with graduated fines, improper lane changes, failure to signal, reckless/negligent driving etc are all punishable already, why do we need a new law just for racing? We don't, no one does, and you still have the exact same problem with a lack of enforcement. The simplest way to get pepole to slow down is have a cop drive in traffic with them.

The "stunting" law was written in such a way as to also capture things like losing grip or shrieking tires, these too will now incur the same penalty as putting lives at risk by racing. You know, because drifting. However, you might rightly ask yourself, how the cops can first of all determine you intended to squeal your tires, or whether you even had a choice as you tried to correct for low tire pressures or bad road conditions? Yes, because of the way the law is worded, someone preventing a spinout can have their car crushed.

Naturally with all such bullshit laws, they are catching all the wrong people. The overwhleming majority of people caught are middle aged men driving really expensive cars; the majority of $10k fines are knocked down to 2k because they have lawyers naturally, and as far as I've seen, street racing hasn't slowed one bit, they just move to a different highway more often.

So far, it has been what nearly 10yrs and no one has yet made a constitutional challenge, probably because of cost, but they would have every legal right to do so. The law presumes you are guilty regardless of circumstance, and the punishments of summary suspension and crushing your car happen before a court determines your guilt. No western legal system would abide that --- if challenged.

The law will continue to catch women doing 90+ as they pass by a short school section limited to 35, and will continue to catch lawyers doing 150 on the highway in their SLS. Until the wrong guy with money gets their lambo confiscated, they will continue to harass and extort the plebs.

The new laws they're trying to push are completely insane, though... they're holding "providers of online content" responsible for what is put online through their services.

That means they are holding ISPs and content upload systems like youtube and blog sites directly responsible for the things their users put online. There's not even a distinction between ISPs and websites; the wording of the law is ridiculously vague.

The problem here is not the laws being followed or not followed, the problem is that this law makes them liable to be sued by big copyright holders, and the only real defence they have that doesn't break the EU's privacy laws would be to implement automatic content filters that basically mean ridiculous unwarranted censorship.

This new law stuff definitely is a real problem._________________QUICK_EDIT

The new laws they're trying to push are completely insane, though... they're holding "providers of online content" responsible for what is put online through their services.

That means they are holding ISPs and content upload systems like youtube and blog sites directly responsible for the things their users put online. There's not even a distinction between ISPs and websites; the wording of the law is ridiculously vague.

The problem here is not the laws being followed or not followed, the problem is that this law makes them liable to be sued by big copyright holders, and the only real defence they have that doesn't break the EU's privacy laws would be to implement automatic content filters that basically mean ridiculous unwarranted censorship.

This new law stuff definitely is a real problem.

I'd love for the day when the internet as we know it dies. Nothing but spam and attention whoring.QUICK_EDIT

I tend to release things I create so that assets are never lost to hard drive problems, accidental deletion, or me having to pretend to care about rippers taking things from my project when it is done.

If you are visually impaired or cannot otherwise answer the challenges below please contact the Administrator for help.

Write only one of the following words: Brotherhood, unity, peace!

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou can reply to topics in this forumYou can edit your posts in this forumYou can delete your posts in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum